Sunday, 10 April 2011

How to assess change feasibility

Whether a truly and genuine need for change, aiming at better meeting
customers’ needs and expectations, clearly emerges and objective evidence
supporting the existence of this need, namely a gap between the requisites dictated
by the exogenous environment and the internal structure and system, have been
gathered, this unquestionably means that time has come for the business leaders
concerned to develop the plan of action necessary to introduce and implement
change.

When
performing this delicate and significant activity, employers should neither
neglect nor underestimate the effects habitually associated with change and the
likely employee adverse reaction and angry response. More often than not in
fact individuals offer a sharp resistance to any change initiative fostered by employers.

Mayo (2002) avers that the main reason for individuals being sceptical
about change is usually due to the circumstance that “organisations are
littered with the debris … of yesterday’s (change) initiatives.” According to
Mayo, people have learned through their experience that change attempts are essentially
all too often associated with failure and deterioration, rather than success
and improvement. This would indeed explain why the first individual reaction to
change is suspicion, incertitude and mistrust.

Inasmuch as the main cause for individuals being habitually wary about
change depends on their awful experience from the past, individuals actually
resist change only whether they perceive it as being in some ways detrimental to
them. Cunningham (2005) suggests that it is not true that people resist change
at large, individuals rather “resist some change”: that change that they fear could
undermine their status, position and stability. Individuals oppose therefore change
which they perceive and fear could cause a deterioration of the status quo, whereas
they would clearly “welcome change that makes things better”, that is, change
which they perceive is intended to improve their status, working conditions and
wellbeing at large.

One of the most, arguably the most, interesting and valuable approach aiming
at thoroughly investigating and analysing the advantages and disadvantages of
change is definitely represented by the Force Field Analysis (Lewin, 1947),
which for simple it may deemed to be certainly still represents an incredibly
useful model.

This approach is underpinned by the basic assumption that change is
subject to both driving and restraining forces. As long as these opposite sets
of forces are counterbalancing one another, or even worse restraining forces
are prevailing over the driving ones, it will be virtually impossible for an
organisation’s business leaders to successfully introduce and implement any type
of change. In this case, still considering the issue from the change management
perspective, a static situation of equilibrium will thus dominate.

Only
when the driving forces prevail over the restraining forces it is indeed possible
for an employer to start planning, designing and implementing change.

This analysis is of remarkable importance in that it enables
organisations to find out whether their projects are viable as they stand or whether
these need to be adjusted or improved before being implemented. Helping organisations
to assess the likely impact on their projects of all of the possible “forces”
emerging during the plan implementation, the force field analysis can also effectually
contribute to determine whether the project is worth the efforts and resources
it requires.

In order to better assess a project viability a score system (taking
into consideration, for instance, a scale from one to five) could be put in
place to associate with each force identified during the analysis, hence to both
those in favour and against change, a specific score. A number of points can
indeed also be allocated to each of the activities considered as beneficial to increase
the chances of the successful plan implementation. Amongst the benefits
provided by this approach, it should not be overlooked the support it offers employers
to better measure and assess the cost/benefit ratio.

Whether from this analysis should emerge the need for some improvements,
the areas of improvement should be promptly identified and reviewed accordingly.
A plan of action enabling the employer to promptly counterbalance the restraining
forces eventually triggered by the identified pressure points should be clearly
also prepared.

A new plan may be for instance resisted by employees by reason of it requiring
the introduction of a new technology. In this case, informing people well in
advance that training sessions will be timely provided to enable all of them to
acquaint themselves with the new technology, would surely contribute to
eliminate or reduce the impact produced by this undesirable restraining force. In
terms of points, the training programme may, for instance, imply a cost
increase of 1/2 unit(s) according to the score system set up, whereas as a
result of its provision the negative impact caused by the introduction of the new
technology might possibly decrease by 2/3 units. Effectively communicating staff
that the introduction of the new technology is of paramount importance for the
organisation continuing to be competitive, and ultimately continuing to stay,
in the market might help to increase of an additional 2/3 points the score in
favour of change. Yet, making employees understand that the new technology the
employer is planning to introduce can practically help them to carry out their daily
tasks in a more straightforward and effectual way could help to provide
additional 2 points to the total score in favour of change.

Comparing advantages and disadvantages does not clearly represent a mere
theoretical, abstract exercise in that it effectively and realistically
contributes to make the case for or eventually against change.

Whether
employers, according to the suggestions provided by the force field analysis, should
decide to encourage a particular behaviour, rather than impose or force staff
towards a specific direction, it is obvious that this would definitely produce beneficial
effects on the change implementation process.

Lewin’s force field analysis can reveal thus to be particularly useful
to both analyse the different forces coming to play during a change development
and execution process and to assess the positive and negative influence which each
of these forces may play. The effectiveness and contribution of this approach,
however, is not limited to this aspect; in fact, the force field analysis can be
also effectively used to identify the key stakeholders involved in the process
in order to acquire their full and genuine support and contribution and try to
take advantage as far as possible of the influence these can exert on
individuals.

The analysis is also useful to identify the opponents and supporters of
the project at large in order to try and obtain their support and find suitable
ways of offsetting the likely reasons for resistance. In unionised
organisations, for instance, trying to implement change procedures without the support
or at worst the lack of opposition of unions is virtually impossible.

Timely identifying supporters and opponents to change can clearly enable
employers to determine the most suitable way of influencing them and getting
their support. In any case, employers should invariably do whatever they can in
order to avert having to face the explicit disapproval of any of the
stakeholders and groups concerned.

Business
leaders should also strive to identify the most effective ways of influencing the
individuals directly concerned by the change implementation process, that is to
say the target groups. Whether these consent to change, the resistance eventually
offered from the individuals of different not directly involved areas of the
business would clearly deflate and would thus be easier to overcome. Although
having the full support of all of the organisation staff is of paramount
importance for the successful implementation of any change plan, what matters
the most, at least in the first instance, is to get the support and commitment
of the individuals directly concerned. Notwithstanding, employers should not
neglect that this could possibly not suffice, every change process, albeit intended
to involve just a particular function, line or office of the firm, is likely to
involve other areas at large, whether not all the different areas of an
organisation.

It clearly appears that in order to successfully managing change what
matters the most is being able to win the restraining forces arising before and
during the change process. A great number of resistance factors have been
identified over the years and it is crucial for employers to know what types of
resistance these have to be ready to face in order to being eventually able to
properly and effectively deal with them.

Resistance to change can be defined as “an individual or group engaging
in acts to block or disrupt an attempt to introduce change” (CIPD, 2010). Employers
should be aware that resistance to change can arise both from individuals and
groups and that whilst resistance opposed by groups, although politically
stronger, is easier to identify and very often openly declared, the resistance opposed
by isolated individuals (that is, that coming from individuals not necessarily in
agreed, declared conjunction one another), although politically potentially less
dangerous, could cause even more practical disruptive effects in that it could
be harder to identify, understand, assess and, consequently, to offset.

In actual fact, resistance to change can take a whole range of forms.
Example of evident/declared forms may include industrial actions (strike) and
information withholding. Less evident and trickier to understand and identify
forms of resistance are typically represented by the diffusion of deliberately incorrect
and inaccurate information and by the spread of alarmist and catastrophic
rumours about the inevitable aftermath caused by the implementation of change.

The CIPD (2010) also stresses the importance of two different broad types
of resistance associated to the substance and to the implementation of change, namely
the resistance to the content, which refers to the object, aim and reasons for
change and the resistance to the process of change, which essentially refers to
the way change is introduced and implemented.

Employers
should take extra care of the way they implement and introduce change, because whether
it is clearly harder to contrast the resistance to change due to its content in
that it is likely to be caused by different point of views on the reasons behind
change; by contrast, employers are in the position to better and more speedily
implement and introduce change when its reasons are largely supported by
people. Businesses should hence avert to risk jeopardising the successful
implementation of the plan for not having agreed with the relevant stakeholders
and target groups concerned the way of introducing change.

Knowing the real reasons underpinning resistance is arguably the sole
way of successfully overcoming the restraining forces to change. Only knowing the
reasons behind it employers can try to come up with the most suitable and
appropriate solutions to tackle and solve the problem. To this extent, it can
surely be helpful summarizing the most recurring causes of individual resistance
to change (Bedian, 1980; Nadler, 1983; Kotter et al, 1986; Recardo, 1991; CIPD,
2010): self-interest, lack of trust, differing viewpoints, coping, uncertainty,
loss of control, threat to status, social considerations, tolerance,
misunderstanding, shock of the new, economic reasons, inconvenience,
interpersonal relationships, lack of respect, lack of consultation, poor
communication, competence fears.

Individual and group resistance nonetheless are not the only causes potentially
harming the successful implementation of change initiatives, also
organisational issues can indeed have a remarkable impact on the expected
outcome produced by the implementation of change management plans.

A typical example of that is when a change process, intended to involve
just part of the organisation, is not planned and undertook duly considering
the impact this is likely to make on the entire organisation or on the organisation
considered as a whole. Without a doubt, the likeliness of achieving appreciable
results reveals to be even more in jeopardy when change plans do not align with
the organisation overall strategy, structure and systems and overlook the linkages
with the issues associated with these organisational elements (CIPD, 2010).

A change plan aiming, for instance, at introducing a new structure, which
defines this but does not consider and stress the importance of simultaneously introducing
new systems coherent and consistent with the intended new structure, able to
support it, is clearly inevitably destined to failure.

It can be concluded that whether change management is traditionally
negatively perceived by individuals, in most cases, it depends on an organisation
ability to effectively plan and implement it. Prior to undertake any change
programme, businesses should invariably strive to carry out thorough and
detailed analysis, involve and receive support from all of the target groups
concerned and possibly from all the individuals within the organisation.

A careful analysis and assessment of the original plan enable employers
to:

- Identify the potential driving and restraining forces,

- Timely amend plans accordingly, whether appropriate,

- Assess the strength of the identified forces,

- Develop and implement an appropriate plan of action to either curb and
reduce the power of the restraining forces or emphasise and give strength to
the driving ones or carry out a series of activities and actions aiming at
achieving both of these results.

When change is perceived by people as a process which can actually contribute
to improve their working conditions and life within the organisational settings,
it is very unlikely that organisations may ever be prompted to face strong
restraining forces. Openly and clearly explaining individuals that change is
aiming at a general improvement, rather than deterioration habitually suffices
to gain their genuine support.

As a general rule, change has to be hence invariably justified and the reasons
behind it properly and openly communicated. Under these circumstances and whether
individuals would not suffer any prejudice by reason of the change implementation,
these are likely to accept it; whether, by contrast, change is intended to force
individuals to undergo and experience worsening conditions, the strength of the
restraining forces might reveal so powerful as to force employers to abruptly change
their plans.